St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1887-01-25
or all fisherm5oh3n r any merchant YES

whole world if she saw fit. He Sd. ~
lection to intrusting that power to a
president. He believed the president
would only have to take advantage of this
bill and
ISSUE HIS PROCLAMATION
that no fish, fresh or sailed or canned or
smoked, the product of Canadian fisher
men, shall be landed in any port of the
United States, and not another outrage by
this British colony would be head Of.
But, if these outrageS were to continue
were to result in a reciprocity treaty (as had
been the case before), that treaty would
again be abrogated and the outrageS would
be again renewed. The bill on the same
subject IN the house of representatives went
farther than this bill. 1t gave the presi
dent authority to proclaim absolute nom
intercourse. He did not believe that the
house committee on foreign affairs would
have reported that bill without knowing
whether OF not the administration was
in sympathy with it. The senator from
MARYLAND (Mr GOrmanl had introduced
resolution on the same subject some time
ago: and that senator was known to be
friend of the administration. The secretary
of The treasury, one Of the brightest men Of
the administration, had lately sent recon-
mendation to the senate reviewing the con-
duct of Canada in this matter and had de-
clared it to be ''simply brutal" The sec
retarv of state had used diplomatic Ian
guage on the subject, but even he had said
over and over again that the acts of the
Canadian authorities were OutrageS and that
the United States would demand restitution.
Mr.. Gray quoted the secretary of state as
characterizing lin note to Minister Vest
the acts Of the Canadian authorities as
INHOSPITABLE AND INHUMAN.
MIR Frye added that the American min
lister to England, Mr.. Phelps. had made all
exceptionable, clear, a comprehensive and
to him all entirely satisfactory statement OF
the whole case. This law. he said, had
dent had at heart the honor and dignity of
the great republic over which he presided.
He believed that the president was in favor
of protecting the rights of every American
citizen. Aye, more. he believed that he
was an honest man, and that if this law
were passed the power which it would put
into his hands would be used for the pro-
lection of American rights. Mr.. ingalls,
said that an object which he had in view
had been accomplished. He had desired
to ascertain, if possible the purpose
and intention of the committee on foreign
relations on the proposed legislation.
He had been in doubt whether it was in
tended to remit the subject to the domain
of diplomacy, or whether it was intended
as a declaration to Great Britain that its
course. if persisted in. would result in war.
He understood from the statement Of the
senator from Maine (AIr Frye speaking
for the committee as he (Mr. Ingalls, sup
i posed he did, that if this bill became a law
! it was declaration to Great Britain that
she would continue the practices at heT
peril and that if they were persisted in they
must be suppressed by war. The state
ment of facts made by the senator from
| Maine
CONSTITUTED \ CASUS BELLT
under the law of nations. The continuance
of amicabe intercourse under such circum-
stance would be impossible. He had.
therefore, desired to know whether the pur-
pose of the bill was to invite diplomacy OF
+ TO announce to Great Britain that such pro
ceedings had been carried to the extremity
and limit of peaceable solution. The voice
was the voice Of Canada but the hand was
/ the hand of Great Britain. MI. Edmund>
asked Mr.. Ingalls, whether he meant to say
that any act which the people OF the United
States might consider violation of a treaty
was necessarily casuS belll.
! Mr. Ingalls, mean to say that de-
cared and avowed and continued viola
tons of treaty obligations, or of interna-
tional law, were a causus belli.
Mr.. Edmunds-It does not necessarily
follow that every breach of treaty is to bt
followed by war.
Mr.. Ingalis-How about a continuous, de
liberate, wilful violation of treaty?
Mr.. Edmunds-That is different thing.
Mr.. Ingalls-That is the case. This
trouble has got to be settled. so far as the
bill is concered, either by diplomacy or by
blood.
Mr.. Edmunds-The question here is hot
a question Of war, but IS
A QUESTION OF REGULATION,
which all nations have reSorted to long be
fore war. and which usually never come
to war.
Mr.. Ingalls-The senator from Vermont
states that the controversy between the tw,
countries is merely an Interpretation OIL
construction of the treaty of 1918.
MI Edmunds-No, sir; l did not say
that.
Mr. Ingalls, understood the senator t
say it. England has always been rutfian
a coward and bully among the nations o
the earth; insolent to the weak, tyrannca
to the feeble and cringing and obSeqnious Il
the strong. Her history for century ha
been q record of crime against the human
race-in Ireland, in Scotland. in Wales
against the Roman Catholics; against tn
Beers of South Africa; against the Hin
docs and the Chinese. Wherever there ha
been a feeble weak, helpless nation
Great Britain has been there for the pun
pose of rapacity and plumber and conquest
England bears no good will to this coun
try. The memory Of two defeat
rankles, dare say, in the minds OF Eng
lishmen. When say that Great Britain
not friendly to this country l mean that til
ruling classes are unfriendly to this country
Her course has been always one of wrong
insolence and outrage. England cheate
the South with false hopes of recognition
and injured the North by violations of neu
trahty. Her course in the treaty of Wash
ingtOn was actuated solely by
FEAR OF THE CONSEQUENCES
to that country in the next wal in whic
she might be engaged if she permitted tn
principle which she established to stan
, undenied l believe there Is no speci;
reciprocity of good will on the par
of America toward England. There al
few Americans who do not regret Waterloo
! There are few Americans who do not ret
ogniZe The fact that the course of Englan
| towards this country has been one Of inSC
| lence and suspicion and outrage from til
beginning of our national existence. If
read the transaction Alright, there is no pU
pose on the part of Great Britain to secur
a peaceful solution, pacific interpretatio
of the doubtful provisions of the treaty {
1918, but rather a deliberate purpose. 5
far. to foment the irritation and di,
content between Canada and the Unite
States as to prevent that paciiicatio
| in the immediate future which would be in
; evitable if both people were LETT to the o.
Grafton of the natural laws of trade and 81
S ciety. L see very plainly what the purpos
t of Great Britain has been in the matter
, Sha 1aciraS IN